The Madness of a World Without Reason

[0:00] Matt: It comes like a fleeting memory. Whatever you grab just turns to dust. Like eye contact with strangers. That was very like Looney Tunes.

[0:28] Michael: That's funny.

[0:29] Matt: I'm having bad allergies today. I don't know how much I'll be sneezing during this podcast.

[0:33] Michael: Uhoh. Just call sniffling. Hey, let's. Let's go to the shores. We didn't do that last time.

[0:39] Matt: Until the end.

[0:40] Michael: Till the end.

[0:41] Matt: The shores.

[0:41] Michael: The shores.

[0:45] Matt: Are we. We good? I think we're good.

[0:48] Michael: All right.

[0:48] Matt: All right. I think I have an idea for how to. How to make these three stories relevant.

[0:55] Michael: Uh. Oh. Why is that an oh? I don't know. Let's roll a dice. What do you got?

[1:02] Matt: Well, so we haven't been talking about current events very much lately on the podcast, which is fine with me. I've really enjoyed talking theology and religion. But I was thinking about these three stories that just kind of happened recently that have kind of got my mind bent on them. And so maybe we could make something of it. And then I want to include a reference to John C. Lennox. You sent me one of his videos the other week. And so he's been popping up in my algorithm a lot. Love that guy. Yeah, he's a Scottish, I think, mathematician, and some things he has to say about atheism. So I'll just start by laying out the three sort of current events that have got me thinking. The first one was the California mayoral race, in which this very strange thing happens where on the night of the election, Karen Bass is in the first spot, Spencer Pratt's in the second spot, and then Ramon, I think is her name was in the third spot. And then something like five days later, and that was with 63% of precincts reporting. And then five days later, all of a sudden, now it's at 93%. And the person who is in third place jumps up to overtake Spencer Pratt. Person in first place basically doesn't move. So it's like, what is this? And also, what is this madness about elections taking days and weeks to call? And I see people sort of saying that, especially older people, like, sort of more Gen Xers, older Gen Xers saying, I seem to remember a day when an election just happened and we knew the results that night. Like, this seems like a new phenomenon. And then a bunch of people firing back like, no, it's always been this way. There isn't any other way to do it. And so there's this kind of, like, element of madness to it. It's like, what, what is happening here. What is this thing we call democracy because it doesn't feel very democratic. And then the second story was that the jury reached a verdict in the trial of Anthony Carmelo. So this 17 year old black boy who I think this was like in Dallas, do you remember?

[3:29] Michael: I don't.

[3:30] Matt: It was a year ago, they had a track and field meet and he and a white boy, Austin Metcalfe, get into a. I don't even know how to describe it. You know, they get into an argument.

[3:44] Michael: Well, I think the guy went into the tent of that team, the different team, the different team.

[3:49] Matt: And they were telling him to leave.

[3:51] Michael: He's like, touch me and. But we'll see what happens, right?

[3:55] Matt: So. Well, what happens is he took out a knife and stabbed Austin Metcalf in the heart and he died on, on the spot. So jury convicted him of murder and I think the sentence is 35 years.

[4:11] Michael: I think it's like 135 years.

[4:14] Matt: What I saw was the sentence in this particular case was between five and 99 years. And I think the judge chose 35 years.

[4:22] Michael: Okay,

[4:24] Matt: but then the reaction to this from a lot of people, I mean, I'll just say it. A lot of people on the left, I don't hear people on the right saying this. They're saying that this is evidence that a black man cannot get a fair trial in the United States. They say part of that evidence is that it was an all white jury, which actually wasn't true. There just weren't any black people on the jury. And my understanding is that there's. There were reasons for that that had nothing to do with race. Just when they do jury selection, they dismiss people for all kinds of reasons. And that's just the way that the jury came out. And should the defense not have liked the jury, they could have asked for a resort or a restack as legal things that you absolutely can do. And they didn't. They agreed to the jury. So it's sort of illogical to claim that the defense attorneys were racist in accepting this jury. And not to mention it's like the fact that people are saying that he needs to appeal, that he was acting in self defense. Seems kind of mad. Like he stabbed a guy, he stabbed another human being in the heart, another human being who was not armed. So there's this madness in it. Like, what is this madness? You know. Why?

[5:49] Michael: Well, Andy was also in the, in that. The opponent's tent. And like he went in there for, you know, it's like there's so many yeah.

[5:57] Matt: Anyways, the better boys argue. Boys fight. You know, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with that fight. Like, the problem here is murder. The problem is not the fighting. You might not like the fighting. That's fine. And then just to put the third one on the table. So there's this story that I think just came out today or yesterday. We've got the World cup going on, and the US Is hosting a number of games, matches, and a referee, who was one of the referees for the World cup, who is a Somalian, was traveling here, landed in Miami and went through customs, was questioned, and then denied entry into the United States. And this immediately. I saw this all over my Instagram feed. People saying, this is a shame on the US we have no business hosting a World cup if we're going to act this way. All the comments were like, but US has no business hosting World Cup. They should stop hosting the Olympics as well. This is a shame, shame, shame, shame. You know? And I was like, this is. That's weird. What is this? So I tried to look into it, and at first all I could find was, you know, they had their reasons. They questioned people who. If you go to another country, I've had this happen to me, especially if you're going there for work, right? You get into the other country. I went to the UK for, to tour as a musician, and I got pulled aside by customs. They pulled me into a room, they asked me questions, they looked up what I was doing, trying to verify that I was there for what I said I was there for, and then they let me go. That's a rational thing for any country to do, to know something about the people it's letting into its border. So the fact that there's this outrage about it, maybe it shouldn't be surprising to me, given the state of the. Whatever you want to call it, culture war, the political landscape in the United States. But it is still surprising to me. And I think the thing that's surprising to me is that the objections to these things are also irrational. It is irrational to say that it's shameful that the US Would be in, you know, doing some kind of vetting of people coming into the country. That's irrational. Just like it's irrational to leave our borders open and allow anyone to come in here that wants to come in here with. With no information. And yet that is a position that people defend. So that. What troubled me, and I wondered about that, and, like, it almost feels like this kind of like a sickness that is taking over the body politic in some way. So those are the three current events. And you want to chime in there before I give the John Lennox point, What do you make of those?

[9:14] Michael: Part of me just. I don't really care, honestly. Like, I think it's a. It's just kind of a worn trope to just say things like, a black man can't get a fair trial. Well, what about this trial? Like. Like, is there anything in this trial that you would object to? I mean, they're not making a case for anything. It's just sort of like a blanket sort of. It doesn't matter what the trial was about. It's about you being black and getting a negative verdict. You know, it's like, I don't. I don't know specifics, though. But just that argument right there just doesn't like. I was like, okay, well, why did he get sentenced? You know, was it a fair trial? What. What are the facts behind this? You know, it's like, that would be something I would be interested in. And it's like, I'm not really interested in the, you know, the attacks of, you know, oh, it's because he's black, or, you know, you know, boys will be boys. I don't know. You know, it's like, whatever it might be, and. And then the Somalian thing, it's like. Like, I. I don't know. It's just. It's just kind of tiring to me, in a sense.

[10:23] Matt: Let's. Let's. Let me respond to what you just said, because that's kind of interesting. Like, I understand why you might say it's not interesting to you, but it's clearly. It's clearly interesting at an existential level to half the country.

[10:38] Michael: Yeah.

[10:39] Matt: Why is that? I don't know. I don't know that indifference is okay in this particular case, because this is my country. This is where we live, right? These are our friends and families who find this existentially interesting. And I'm not trying to correct. Pick a fight or pick a fight. I want to understand why is this there? This. Why is there this? What I see as an irrational. In all three of these cases, an irrational objection that is grounded in essentially, if you look at it as from the country's perspective, self hatred and shame, it isn't grounded in reality. It's not grounded in the facts of the case. It is grounded in something that is. That seems bent on tearing this whole thing down. You know, you can say a black man can't get a fair trial when he murders another person, if he gets convicted. And yet had Derek Chauvin not been convicted, you would say the opposite. That, that wasn't a fair trial. Right. Can't. Can't have been a fair trial if the outcome doesn't go the way I want it to go.

[12:13] Michael: Yeah, well, I mean, it's also can be said about just the mayor relations, sort of like, you know, hey, because Pratt got kicked down, it's like something's. There's some sort of fraud here. You know, it's like. But that's not the. I feel like that's what I'm tired of is this sort of like it's all this sort of like something's wrong here because my team didn't win. You know, whatever, whatever. Maybe Republicans with, with Pratt or, you know, the kid. You know, it's like, it's like. And again, I'm not saying any of these are right or wrong. I'm just. I'm just making the point that we get so caught up in my team, whoever you identify with won or lost, most likely lost. And then you're like, saying it's not fair rather than like looking at, okay, well, what happened in the situation. So we go into the details as sort of like, okay, hey, this is kind of what happened. This is a, this is an incident, and these are the facts that we know and understand, you know, then based your conclusion off of that rather than, you know, this is. This doesn't fit my team's perspective. So I think that's what I'm just tired of is like. It's like, okay, it doesn't fit your team's perspective, but you're not really addressing the issue. You're not really addressing the right, you

[13:28] Matt: know, which from the perspective of a, of a sporting analogy, you kind of. That makes sense. You know, a team that doesn't. Isn't introspective about why they're not succeeding is obviously not going to succeed and they're going to fall off the, you know, fall out of the Premier League into the.

[13:46] Michael: Get relegated.

[13:47] Matt: Relegated. That's it. So what I find interesting is that there was some commentary about this case, this Anthony Carmelo case. And simultaneously, you know, this is obviously the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, which is pretty awesome. And I think Hillsdale College and the White House in collaboration, have been putting out all of these sort of short 15 minute YouTube videos about the founding of the country and the history. And it's really fascinating stuff. And something that was pointed out is that sort of the genius of our legal system is that in criminal court, you have to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And this is different than in a civil court. In a civil court, you just have to prove a preponderance of the evidence, which means 51% of the evidence points toward guilt. But when it comes to criminal trials, we have a very high standard for conviction. And I saw somebody talking about how it's nearly impossible to prove anything 100%. So beyond a reasonable doubt is basically the highest standard available. And that's the standard we use. And so there's another way that we could look at this and say

[15:23] Michael: we

[15:23] Matt: don't know if our system came to the right conclusion. We do know that it is an incredible system that's very hard to improve upon. And somebody else made the point that you have a right to jury by your peers. You don't have a right to the jury being your friends and family, people who are on your side, you have a right to peers. And so the system did what it was supposed to do. Hopefully, that could obviously be scrutinized, I assume. I haven't heard that there was anything particularly wrong about the way that that case went. But the other way to look at this could be something like, I'm glad that we have this legal system that is set up to deal with very complex and complicated matters like guilt of murder, and that we have such high standards that protect, you know, the bad outcome that we're claiming happened from. From happening. Not sure exactly what point I'm driving towards there. I keep trying to find a segue, and I'm not doing a great job.

[16:43] Michael: Well, I mean, I think that's a. I don't know what. What people are really wanting. It's like. And I think that's the part that is confusing because people are wanting different things. And, you know, if you want your perspective or your party to be right, it's like, well, at the cost of what? And I think that's the part that. Are we looking for truth? And I think that's something that I feel like the United States system is trying to point us towards. But you can never, like, you can never encapsulate that. That objective into law. Like, that's just. It's just impossible. But how can you best set it up to be successful in finding the truth?

[17:32] Matt: Right.

[17:32] Michael: And I think that's kind of the point I feel like you're making is like. It's like we've kind of set the system up so that we have a better percentage of maybe reaching the truth, but it's also admitting that it's like we don't really know. Like, it's, It's.

[17:49] Matt: It's.

[17:49] Michael: There's 100% is very. It's impossible.

[17:52] Matt: Well, who is it that said it is better that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongfully convicted? Do you remember who said that?

[18:01] Michael: It sounds like a Jefferson thing, but I don't know, 100%.

[18:03] Matt: I think it's just really important to understand that the way that our system designed was designed with extreme caution for the innocence and would much rather get a lot of things wrong in the wrong direction than get something wrong in the right direction. Does that make sense?

[18:22] Michael: Yeah.

[18:26] Matt: Yeah. So I think the thing that's been puzzling me about these three stories is really maybe not that much different than what's been puzzling me for since the year 2020. You know, and so many of these things, it's like, you know, 20 George Floyd happens and Roland Fryer, who's a black Harvard professor, has done a study on police gun violence and found that there's no evidence for the narrative that we were all spinning. And the response to that was to, well, he's got to be removed from Harvard, obviously, because we don't like what he's saying. There's this irrationality that's running through it. And as I was kind of gnawing on these things, and I think they troubled me because what do you do in an irrational world? I mean, nothing is predictable. The narrative switches. It's 1984. Who you're angry at changes and the past is rewritten to justify that. And I think it troubles me because it's not a world I want to live in. I want to be in a world that is rational. And I think this starts to kind of merge into a lot of conversations we've been having about God and about values as such and whether or not you can create values without God. And I heard this. So here I'll introduce this concept from John Lennox. And actually, I'm not sure that it's his concept. He actually says that Charles Darwin, in a letter to his friend after publishing the Origin of Species, was troubled by this himself. And the troubling thing is that atheism, when taken to its logical conclusion, unwinds rationality completely. There can be no rationality, just like there can be no defensible values without God, which is kind of a strange concept. And it's hard for me to wrap my Mind around. But the way John Lennox put it, he said, evolution is the. The aimless process by which things mutate, and it. It. There's no purpose behind it because there's no God behind it. And he said, but if you think about it, if you are the result of an aimless process, and you say, well, I'm a rational human being. And you might say, I'm a rational human being because I can do science and discover things. And John Lennox says, I can ask you, well, what do you do science with? And he said, people might start to say their mind. He said, but increasingly people are more materialists, and so they start saying their brain. So your brain, this thing that's the result of this purposeless, aimless process you trusted to do things right. He said, what if I gave you. I'll change the analogy a little bit if I gave you a piece of accounting software, Michael. And I said, this will run your business for you. I said, just so you know that this software is the result of a purposeless, aimless process. It's like, would you install that and trust it to run your business? That would be an irrational thing to do. And you could say, so what about your brain? Why would you trust your brain to do science or to even make the claim like you have rationality? And so it unwinds the concept completely, and there's nothing, there's nowhere to stand on in order to say that something is rational or not rational. And so I think that's what we're seeing increasingly in our world, especially in the west, is this irrationality. Because to use Nietzsche's analogy, so much of our culture has unhooked the earth from its sun, and there's this madness lurking in the bottom of these issues. And it's like, I want to say, snap out of it. I wish we could snap out of it. We're a really good country. So it's a wonderful place to be and to live.

[22:56] Michael: Yeah, I mean, it just kind of leads me to more questions as for sort of like, you know, even just rationality, it's like. It's like you're already claiming that there is something that's rational outside of yourself, and. And that's there's something discoverable, something objective, because that's what rational rationality is. It's like, hey, here's something to be observed that's objectively true.

[23:23] Matt: Right.

[23:24] Michael: Or objectively observable by more than one person at least, you know?

[23:30] Matt: Yeah.

[23:30] Michael: And so I think that's. I think that's a really difficult Thing is like, you know, then that was interesting because you even said, like, you have to trust your brain, that what you're seeing and what you're diagnosing is. Is believable, right? And is actually there. And I think that's the part is like, whenever there is not an objective reality outside of yourself, it's like it really does free you from having to adhere to any sort of rules and. Or create your own rules. And I think that's kind of something I feel like you're kind of touching on is like, it's like we start creating our own rules, and people have to abide by those rules in order to have any sort of agreement. Like, what's the highest. Like, in the first case you're talking about is like, well, the reason why everything about this case is wrong is because a black man can't get a fair trial. So it's not anything about the trial. It's about his color. It's like, okay, well, maybe that can be one factor of it, and maybe that can be true. Okay, well, let's look at this. And so you go beyond just maybe that subjective observation of the color of somebody's skin and actually look at the case and what actually happened. And there should be something that we can both point to, but just point to someone's color of their skin and say they didn't get a fair trial because of that, and it doesn't really tell you anything. And so I think that's the hard thing. And if you try to go beyond that, then it's sort of like you're seen as a bigot or a racist or, you know, whatever it might be that the label is. So I think that's. That's the part I struggle with is. Is in order to adhere to whatever group you're a part of, once they start asking you to, you know, even just give up your rationality or, like, question asking.

[25:30] Matt: It's sort of like.

[25:31] Michael: I feel like it's like, yeah, there. There is no. Like, there is no. There's no rationality. Like, that doesn't make. There's no. There's no argument you can make.

[25:41] Matt: It's just a. Yeah, it's not necessary. Well, it kind of reminds me of what we were talking about last week, too, right? Like, we hate Elon Musk now, and so you need to hate him too. And my response to that is like, that doesn't make any sense, or, sorry, that Elon Musk is dumb. I'm like, that doesn't make any sense. There's no evidence for that. And the point is that the message that comes back is, I don't care about the evidence. I care about that being true. And this is a repeating pattern. We saw the same thing with racism in 2020 and George Floyd, we've seen it countless other times. The evidence is incidental, to use that word. You know, if the evidence helps, great. If it hurts, well, call it a racist and carry on. And so maybe that leads me to another question. It's like, and this goes into maybe something, maybe we could talk a little bit about the kingdom of Heaven. Because it seems like what I find in those kinds of exchanges is, yeah, if the evidence helps my case, great. If not, then call the evidence racist and carry on. We have become obsessed with our own narrative and we will protect that narrative at all costs, even at the cost of reality itself. And maybe this is why it troubles me so much, because I'm like, well, reality itself is a. It's all of ours, we're all here. And if you're going to try to abolish reality itself, that has an effect on me and my children and my life. And I'm very troubled by that. I mean, is there anything more genocidal than that? You might say, well, the problem is the Jews. Exterminate the Jews. The problem is the kulaks. Exterminate the kulaks. The problem is the. Whatever the people in Maoist China were, the Uyghurs or the Uyghurs currently. And you're like, that's genocide. That's bad, right? What is it? At the level of reality itself, we're going to dispose of everything, Everything that's real. That's kind of a spiritual kind of genocide. I mean, really only comparable to the murder of God himself in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That's what we talked about a couple of weeks ago. That's the ultimate revenge. Cain's ultimate revenge on God. The Cain in all of us. Our ultimate revenge on God is to murder him. So maybe that's why it troubles me so much. But you were talking earlier about something similar with basically trying to strong arm your own reality over the emerging reality.

[28:40] Michael: I like that. Emerging reality. Yeah.

[28:43] Matt: Oh, in the context of Jesus and the Pharisees.

[28:48] Michael: Well, I just, I have so many questions in this area. This is not, this is something I'm kind of like just kind of working through as far as, like for myself is. I kind of find that the more I recognize that there is a. There's a reality that like I don't understand. And I'm interacting with it, like, the more baffling it is, you know, it's like, whether it be with my wife, with my kids, with my business, with relationships, it's like you're navigating all of these things, and, like, it's. There's something that's not arbitrary about any of those things. It's. It's like we. It's like, in order to love my wife, it's like, I shouldn't beat her. You know, it's like, well, that sounds obvious. You know, it's like. It's like, yeah, okay, but what does that. What does that mean? It's like. It's like, that's not really loving your wife. Not beating her, like, by not doing that. That's not loving. You know, it's like. It's like, but what. What does it mean to love my wife? And it's like, why is that important? And then also, it's like. It's like, also, like, when I. When I put my energies toward loving my wife, something else happens. Like, there's a reality that starts to reveal itself that's different. And so I find this. I find this concept happening in so many different areas. Like. Like when I treat somebody, you know, like, even people I'm frustrated with, like, there's something special and, like. Like, unique about them.

[30:23] Matt: Sounded like a Tasmanian devil.

[30:25] Michael: I was like, what the heck is that?

[30:26] Matt: I don't know if it will pick up on the m. There was a dog barking inside it. Very strange.

[30:31] Michael: So I just find that there's this. There's this reality that if I'm not paying attention to it, I don't see it. But then when it, like, kind of really rears its head, it's easier to see from, like. Like, really extreme examples. Like, it's like, oh, by not beating my wife, that shows that I love her. It's like, actually, no, you know, it's like. But at the same time, it's like, whenever I put my attention towards that, it's like something. Something about this life starts to come alive, you know, it's like whenever I. Whenever I see somebody as, like, you know, a homeless person or a crazy person or. Or matt, which is both, you know. You know, it's like. It's. It's like the world looks different. And then you have to say, like, well, is that true? Like, is it? Or is it. Is it not true? It's like, like, if I. If I believe that a black man cannot get a fair trial, it's like, oh, like, how do we stop that? Like, what does that even mean? It's like, you know. So are you saying that the facts of the case were actually leaning in his favor and he couldn't get a fair trial? Well, that's wrong. Let's do something about that. But that's not what they're saying.

[31:43] Matt: Right.

[31:44] Michael: And in this case specifically, not that there hasn't been unfair trials like that, that is. But. But the point is, is like, it's not a matter of the person being black. It's a matter of it was an unfair trial and we need to fix that. Let's do that. But nobody's interested in that part of it. And I think that's what kind of disinterests me from these things, because it's like they're not really wanting to look at how was it not a fair trial?

[32:09] Matt: Right, Totally.

[32:10] Michael: Let's fix that.

[32:11] Matt: Well, that's what drove me so mad about the George Floyd thing, is that all the people, you know, complaining about this racist, brutal police force also wouldn't look at any evidence to support their claims. And if you gave them evidence that refuted their claims, they would put their fingers in their ears, you know, or

[32:34] Michael: like, of course they wouldn't record that.

[32:36] Matt: My observation at the time was kind of like, well, if you're not willing to, like, look at the evidence of the way things are now, then you can't ever hope to improve it because you won't be able to measure the improvement. And it seemed like the point was, well, no, actually we don't care about improving it. We're having a lot of fun complaining about it. We'd really like to stay here because it's making us feel very righteous to complain about it. And there's something similar, I think, going on with a lot of these things. And it's not just about racism. I think it's also about. I think I see that in the voting scandals. I think I see it in this referee who was denied entry and the sort of backwards logic of borders and whether or not they should be open or closed and watching people switch their opinion on that over the years without any evidence or justification. It's like, what is that in the human soul that's coming out? You know, it's like, Have you ever known a group of people? It's generally the people that I've known that are like this seem to you sort of find them in geographic areas. So, like, in certain small Southern towns, you might find a lot of people like this and by the like, this. I mean, they seem to always need to have something to about. All of their conversations are centered around complaining about something. And there's a sense in which it's a little bit endearing. It's kind of cathartic. Cathartic, yeah. But then there's also the feeling of like, I don't think things are as bad as you're making them out to be. But it seems like you need to make them out to be that bad for some reason. Maybe it is the catharsis that you need in order to bear the really bad thing that you don't want to look at. And it might just be the disappointment in your own upbringing or that you live in this town or that something or the other. I wonder if that is another example of the same thing. It's like I don't really want to fix the problem because I'm enjoying the catharsis of complaining about it. And it could be catharsis, it could be the felt sense of virtue and complaining about it felt sense of righteousness. But it reminds me of that Carl Jung quote, which is that all neuroses are alternatives to legitimate suffering. We turn to madness when we want to avoid legitimate suffering. You know, it's like what you're suggesting. It's like, okay, if this wasn't a fair trial, we should try to fix that. We shouldn't be suffering this. Right? And the response is like, no, I just don't want to suffer it. I don't want to look at it. That's the madness. So there's the element of irrationality because you can't. I think this is so interesting and it's so. I wonder if it's really hard to make the point that rationality and virtues must be grounded in God. But I wonder if we're all learning that lesson slowly and surely and at one point it will be somewhat self evident. Even if it's not right now because we still believe things like. We have free and fair elections. We believe things like pharma has our best interests in mind. We believe all kinds of crazy things like science is God and western medicine is a what a perfect solution to all problems.

[36:42] Michael: Well, I even saw like a stat I think it was today. It was like 156,000 dead people were getting Social Security and It was like $41 million a year or something like that. I forget the exact numbers.

[36:56] Matt: It's like, well, that's actually good. I'm kidding.

[37:00] Michael: Yeah, exactly. You know, but I think that's the Part is like, it's like, it's not that there's not flaws in the system, you know, and, and also it's like, you know, what does it mean to be free and fair elections?

[37:13] Matt: Right?

[37:14] Michael: It's like there's. It doesn't mean perfect. There's some sort of element of, You know, plus or minus two. Like. Like it's not gonna. It's not gonna, like you're gonna have. You have some sort of error.

[37:30] Matt: Well, that's a really important point, I think. I mean, it's similar to the. The justice system. Justice system is. Isn't perfect. It can't be perfect. So can we make it as. In such a way that we can trust it?

[37:41] Michael: Yeah, well, I think that's the part is like, is we. We first have to admit that it's like, is our justice system? Is our election system perfect? The answer is no. Okay, well, how can we ensure that it's the best it can be? So we already know that it can be manipulated. That's just a given. Like, we do it all the time. I do it with my wife, I do it with my kids. I do with my business. I do with you. I do with everybody. It's like there's a certain amount of manipulation that happens because I didn't know

[38:09] Matt: you were so manipulative.

[38:10] Michael: I know, but it is true. It's like, I want you to see me in a certain light. I want to be presented as, you know, intelligent or taken care of or, you know, it's like whatever it might be, it's like there's a certain lie that I present. And part of it is, is it can be a lie. And it can also just be like, hey, I actually want to be this person. And so I'm working towards that. And I'm also. But I'm also acknowledging in that, in pursuing that, you also have to acknowledge it's like, I am not that, although I want to be that.

[38:40] Matt: Yeah, you kind of.

[38:40] Michael: So you're almost kind of a little bit living a lie.

[38:43] Matt: I think it's a better way to say that.

[38:44] Michael: I think I want to be more extreme just because it's like, you have to.

[38:47] Matt: Yeah, you have to play the part of who you want to become. Like, we talked about this a while back when I was going to watch a lot of high school and junior high football games. It's like, what are those kids doing? They don't know what they're doing. They're pretending. And then at some point they get to the right age and they've played enough games and all of a sudden you're like, holy shit. They're not pretending anymore. They are actually doing it. We're all that way. You have to play the part to become solar the part. But yeah, the question is not whether our systems are perfect, it's how can we design them so that we trust them. And maybe this is another example of how trust in so many institutions has broken down over the last six or 10 years. I don't know how long it's been.

[39:33] Michael: Because even that statement, like a black man can't get a fair trial, like, I think that we take that, we take that seriously, like, is that true? Let's get down to the bottom of that. Because if it's, if that is true,

[39:48] Matt: I don't think there's a single person in this country that wants that reality.

[39:51] Michael: Yeah, that's. That's a, that's a dangerous reality because, you know, so I think that's the part that's like, we have to first admit that, that our, that our systems are not perfect.

[40:02] Matt: Actually, I want to take back that statement. I said that there's not a single person in this country that wants that reality. I think that's not true. I think there's a lot of people that want that reality because it affords them something. It affords them some kind of leverage in a culture war, you know, And I think, yeah. Don't we all want free and fair elections? Well, obviously not. I mean, are there corrupt people? Of course those people don't want free and fair elections. Yeah, they want things to go in the way that benefits them.

[40:33] Michael: Whether it's their corporate agendas or their personal agendas. It's like. Or financial agendas. It's like, it's like.

[40:40] Matt: Do you think that the, you know, the, the Democratic super majority in California, do they. Do they want free and fair elections? I don't think they do. I think that they want to win. They don't want to give up power.

[40:52] Michael: Well, it's funny because that's a statement from both sides. Both sides want to win. Now what are you willing to do to make that happen?

[40:59] Matt: Right. Are you willing to play the game fairly? And obviously there are people who will not play the game fairly. And that could be in the Tour de France or the super bowl or.

[41:13] Michael: We've seen this many all over the place.

[41:15] Matt: Totally. What's the guy with one testicle?

[41:17] Michael: Lance Armstrong.

[41:18] Matt: Lance Armstrong, one testicle guy.

[41:20] Michael: Yeah.

[41:26] Matt: Yeah.

[41:27] Michael: But I think that's the part. It's like, it's like You. You start to have to. Like, there's a. There's a foundation that we're looking at here is like. Because you also have to see it in yourself. It's like, I don't see things as they are. Like, you have to be. You have to be able to admit that to yourself first before you can correct anything. It's like the whole thing, what Jesus talks about is like, get this, get the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your neighbor's. Ey. Like, it's like, if you don't see that, that the very thing that you're complaining about is in you, then you can't see it correctly.

[41:59] Matt: Right?

[42:00] Michael: And I think that's. I think that's a. That's a hard thing. Like, it's easier to. Like, it's over there, right? They're the bad people. It's like, actually, it's also in you.

[42:11] Matt: Well, it's like we talked about a few weeks ago, that Solzhenitsyn line, the line between good and evil is drawn down the heart of every man. And I think culturally we have forgotten that. We think the evil is outside of us. We think that the problem is outside of us. And that's really convenient because we don't have to be the source of the problem, but the truth. And I think that this is a. This is a truth I think you only find biblically, you only find it in Christianity and maybe correct me if I'm wrong, is that we are the problem. We are the ultimate source of the problem. And that's real problem, because what do we do with ourselves and what do we do with each other? And the only place that I find a reasonable answer to that is in the biblical narrative. But there has certainly been a surprising open attack on Christianity, especially of all the world religions in the last. I mean, I started to become startled by it maybe about six months ago, and we talked about it. I think. I don't remember what episode number it was. Is the US a Christian Country? And the response to that episode was kind of alarming to me as well. People. There were some people not very happy with that conversation. So.

[43:42] Michael: Which makes sense. I mean, it's because, like, you're. You're basically claiming and a certain, you know, idea has framed the country that you live in. And it's like, it's like, if you don't adhere to that, it's like you like. But, but, but I think that's a hard thing, is like, what are you appealing to? Like, If. If, like, what is the. The US which is still, with all of its faults, one of the best countries in the world. That's why everybody wants to be here.

[44:10] Matt: Right.

[44:11] Michael: You know, and that's why you're able to complain about all the things you can complain about and not be thrown in jail.

[44:15] Matt: Right.

[44:15] Michael: You know, to a certain degree. You know, I think they're. It's. It's. What is the foundation of that? Like, where does it come from? You know, and maybe you could say that it was Rome and Greece, you know, or something like that. And. And Christianity. And there's. There's, you know, Judeo Christian values and, you know, that's kind of what the west has been built on and has. Has been the most prosperous, you know, so. Yeah, so it's like, what do you do with those. If you don't have that foundation or if you start to, like, deny the foundation? Yeah, it's like, well, okay, well, what is your foundation? I think that's the hard thing for people to. They have to start clinging to certain ideologies for their foundation. You know, whether going. Reverting back to communism or. Or it's unfair for a certain type of people or something like that. It's like. And everybody else should sort of acquiesce to whatever my belief system is. Like, there's nothing that you can refer. Reference, because you have to. You can only reference my understanding. So, like, the world I live in, like, the world I live in, I have to make sure it aligns with you, Matt. Like, that's. That'd be really hard to do. Like, Matt, am I living the correct life? And you. And I have to, like, you have to be able to tell me whether that's correct or not. So I'm relying on you. You're my reference point of. Of telling me, like, am I. Am I doing the right thing? And so I feel like that's what a lot of people are saying is like. Is like, don't look at the evidence or the facts that we can talk about and actually debate.

[45:48] Matt: Look at my feelings.

[45:49] Michael: Look at my feelings. This is how I feel about it. And if you don't acquiesce to how

[45:53] Matt: I feel about it, if you didn't make me feel this way, you're wrong.

[45:57] Michael: Yeah. And it's like, I don't know what to do with that. It's like, that's a. That's an unhealthy relationship. Like, any sort of, like, you know, couple that lives in that kind of, like, framework, we would say get out of that relationship.

[46:12] Matt: Right.

[46:12] Michael: It's like, only do what your husband tells you to do. Well, because he's the frame of reference. Yeah.

[46:17] Matt: Your beating analogy, it's like, well, I wouldn't have beaten you if you hadn't made me so angry. Maybe that's the real problem here.

[46:22] Michael: Totally. That's a great. That's a great example of that, you know, or like a husband who loves his wife and. And he can't do anything right. And so she's always nagging him, and he's, like, trying. And this kind of gives up because according to her, he is not. Doesn't live up to the standard. You know, it's like. It's like, well, his. It's because his reference point is his wife and how his wife views him. You know, it's like, it's not outside of them. And I think that's the part is, like, even in a marriage, it's like, you have to reference something outside of yourself. Like, what does it mean to have a good marriage? It's not what my wife thinks. It's not what I think it's about. What is what makes a good marriage.

[47:00] Matt: I heard somebody making this point. I think I brought it up before, that the marriage vows are not actually to each other. They're to God. I vow to God this is how I want to treat this person.

[47:17] Michael: Well, because I hear these two, like, in marriage counseling from different people. And I've done some. A little bit myself. It's like, you know, okay, what can you do to sort of meet halfway? And that's even a hard. A hard thing. I think there's some benefit to that as sort of like, maybe a starting place if you're trying to decide what

[47:39] Matt: to cook for dinner.

[47:40] Michael: Yeah. It's like.

[47:42] Matt: Or, like, what drapes to choose or wallpaper.

[47:45] Michael: Yeah. Or like. Like an easy one is like, okay, you're going out to dinner, and I want to go to torches. And you're like, no. Okay. Well, one thing would be like, okay, sushi. Yeah. So then you say, okay, well, now you make a suggestion. And so you go back and forth until you. But if you say, no, you have to make a suggestion. And so there's some healthy, like. Like, tools. But still it's like, but what are you working towards? It's like you're working towards being able to communicate with somebody else. And, like, it's like, we have the same goals. Like, we want to go eat, and obviously we're wanting to go eat together, you know, so that's Good. That's good that we're actually wanting to at least eat together, you know, so, like, you know, so there's something there, you know, so if we can just maybe solve a little bit of this, then maybe, like, some of the more important things start to kind of come together.

[48:35] Matt: Well, that's a really interesting point, because two people involved in a relationship that they're trying to make successful, or maybe at least not worse. That all makes sense. But if you apply that same kind of logic to the conversation we've been having about our culture, it starts to feel like, oh, we're not in relationship with other people who want this to be successful. We don't agree on what it. On whether it should be successful or not. You know, I mean, that's the example of, okay, you're saying a black man can't get a fair trial in America. Can we agree that that's a bad thing and try to figure out how to fix it? And the answer is like, well, no. So it's the equivalent of you saying, I think we should go to Torchy's. And I just go, no. It's like, no suggestion, no participation. Just like, all right, well, should we just stop doing this? Should I go there by myself? You want to do your own thing? What's going on here?

[49:41] Michael: Yeah, yeah, that's funny. It's like, you know, if someone's just like, I want to go towards you, say no. It's like, and then if the other person that made the suggestion would be like, okay, hey, I really do care about you, so I'd really like to kind of like, what can we do to move forward in this? And it's just like, no. Yeah, like, there's just nothing you can do with that. And so you. You're needing a good faith response. Like, that's. If I were to ask, like, hey, why do you keep saying no? Like, I. I could make more suggestions, but I feel like you have something specific in mind. And, you know, or maybe tonight, you know, we just go. We eat our separate ways tonight, you know, maybe we can figure out this tomorrow or something like that. And it's like. It's like if you have one person pushing in this area, but the other person is not wanting to participate at all, there's really nothing you can do, right? It's like, it's like, do you want to go eat with me? And be like. And if the answer is no, then it's like, okay. But it's like, but now you're admitting it's like, you didn't really want to solve the problem to begin with of where to eat. The main thing was, is you just didn't want to eat with me.

[50:48] Matt: I mean, maybe this is why. I mean, it starts to look to me like when you remove a higher order ideal, when you remove God, whether it's from a relationship and maybe let's just say the higher order ideal is that we both want it to be successful. You remove that, you remove God from a culture. Things turn totalitarian in sort of wild ways. Because just to use the dinner example, it's like, it seems to me like there's, you know, if one person is not participating and I'm willing to participate and just saying, no, no, no. There's three options, essentially. Separation, divorce. Right. Like, well, we're just not going to do it. You literally forced me to go to torchies. Or I literally force you to shut up. Right. And in a sense, all three of those are totalitarian. The divorce one is much, much harder. It's the hardest one. Which is why I think civil wars seem to rarely end in amicable separation. Right. One side imposes their view on the other. And for the vast history of humanity, that is the way that most disagreements and disputes were settled. It wasn't really, I would probably argue it wasn't really until the founding of the United States of America that a new idea was put on the table that allowed for cooperation in a non tyrannical way.

[52:37] Michael: Yeah, you saw, you saw elements of this in, in Greece and Rome too.

[52:41] Matt: Yeah.

[52:41] Michael: And I think that was kind of. There were some of the building blocks for that. And I think that's why those, those cultures were so successful because they, they had that building block. You know, like, as a Roman citizen, you are afforded these rights, but those rights didn't, weren't given to everyone.

[52:57] Matt: Yeah, but also like Roman citizens were only like one seventh of the population of Rome. Everyone else was slaves.

[53:03] Michael: Totally.

[53:03] Matt: So it's like, yeah, some ideas germinated in there and we're able to help out.

[53:08] Michael: Totally. But you could appeal to something.

[53:10] Matt: But it's like you wouldn't want to replace the United States with Rome.

[53:13] Michael: No. Yeah, no. I think ultimately your example, I mean, but you did see this with like, you know, Great Britain too. You know, as far as like Parliament and kind of getting away from the kings and.

[53:26] Matt: Oh man. Well, I've just been watching all of these videos that Hillsdale College is producing about the founding of the United States and they were just talking about the Revolutionary War and just how absolutely insane it was that we won that. Like, it's kind of hard, I think, to remember back to those centuries. I totally remember. But Britain was the world's superpower. They basically conquered the world. That's. I mean, they owned most of Europe. They owned India. They owned, like, they colonized everywhere. This was the greatest navy on the planet. And this, like, ragtag group of rapscallions who were, you know, living this kind of crazy life in the colonies of this new land were like, you know, we're not doing it anymore. Not putting up with it. And the king was like, well, okay, I'll come murder you. And they fought back and won. It's crazy.

[54:27] Michael: Yeah,

[54:31] Matt: I love it. I hate that our culture is so divided right now, because I think on this 250th anniversary, it could have been such an opportunity for reconciliation and for, like, remembering our. Our shared common piece of this really incredible story, you know, and. And even the fact that we have so many people in the country obsessed with racism, obsessed with there being racism, and there isn't enough racism. So they have to create racism or invent it out of whole cloth to justify their appetite for it. But it's like the real story of America and Britain, for that matter, is the ending of slavery. That was a fantastic feat. You know, like, if you haven't watched Diana Day Lewis's Lincoln, I would really recommend watching it.

[55:25] Michael: Oh, I haven't seen that.

[55:27] Matt: And just the. The chess moves that they had to do to get the Civil War to end in such a way that they ended slavery with it, because there was the very real possibility that the Civil War was going to end without ending slavery. And Lincoln wasn't going to have it. He saw it through. But there was a real art to it. And the idea that, you know, the north didn't hold slaves, and yet they were willing to send their boys. Their boys were willing to go and fight and die in horrific ways in the Civil War. I think my understanding is it was like one of the deadliest wars we participated in because maybe all the casualties were Americans. It was a terrible war, and people who didn't participate in slavery were willing to go die to end it. The British sent men and boys out into the open ocean to die and give their lives to stop the slave trade. That is so remarkable we could be talking about that. And yet the clips we have going around are, a black man can't get a fair trial in the United States. And the reason that this Omar referee, Somali referee, was denied entry is because our MAGA President is a racist and hates brown people.

[57:01] Michael: See, that's the part that bothers me. It's not saying, okay, here's what happened.

[57:06] Matt: Oh, by the way, I did finally find out what happened, and apparently customs found ties between him and Al Shabaab and Al Qaeda members. So it's like those people that flew planes into the Twin Towers 25 years ago. Those people. So is that a rational reason to deny him entry into the United States? It seems like candidate for one. I mean, I don't have all the information.

[57:37] Michael: Well, if anything, it's like, then that's what you attack is like, did he actually have ties?

[57:42] Matt: Right.

[57:43] Michael: So look at that.

[57:43] Matt: Maybe he didn't.

[57:44] Michael: Maybe didn't. Yeah.

[57:45] Matt: And I would say, you know, it's kind of like. Well, it's like why we have the legal precedent of beyond a reasonable doubt where in other cases we have a preponderance of the evidence.

[57:59] Michael: What.

[58:00] Matt: What level would you like to apply to admitting people into our country? You know, yeah, if. If. If I find 51, there's a 51 chance he has ties to Al Qaeda. Is that a reasonable amount to say, hey, you don't get to come in?

[58:15] Michael: Yeah.

[58:17] Matt: Or would you like it to be a. Beyond a reasonable doubt? And that's a conversation that you could have.

[58:23] Michael: And see, this is. This is a hard thing, too.

[58:24] Matt: It's like, racism is just. Well, it's also.

[58:27] Michael: Then you kind of. You can see where, like, the other group would be like, well, I want my people to determine whether that was reasonable. And that's the hard thing with the justice system in general is we're asking people to be impartial, and we're not impartial. And that is really difficult to then look at the evidence impartially. And I think that's been the genius behind the system is like, we really do attempt to look at things impartially, and there's checks and balances and appeals and all this kind of stuff to do that.

[58:59] Matt: Which is why lady justice is depicted as blindfolded.

[59:04] Michael: Yeah. We have so much symbolism around this and. And so many ideas that if we would just start, like, kind of like looking up to those ideas and ideals, it's like, I feel like we would start seeing differently. But I think that's the part is like, once you start taking away objective truth, then those ideas and ideals don't really mean anything. And I think that's what we're actually saying as a culture in the United States. No, those things do mean something. And those things we aspire to. It's not that we will get them perfect, but we aspire to them.

[59:44] Matt: Well, here's another interesting regression, though. I don't know if it's a regression or a digression, but it's like we've stopped looking up to God. And so you might say, well, at least we have this. This wonderful world of symbology. We could look up to the symbols to remember, and we stopped looking up to those. And then you might be able to say, well, you could look up to the next generation. You could look up to your children, to what makes a good world for them. And yet we started saying, no, actually, the coolest thing you can do is have children. Our world is so bad that it would be cruel to bring new life into it. I ran across a clip of a woman. Making the case. It's hard for me to even remember how she said it because it was so insane to me. But basically making the case that the only way that you'll be able to successfully fight back against this fascist government is by not having kids. Because when you don't have kids, you have the time to fight back. They want you to have kids so that you're preoccupied. And I guess I can see some amount of

[60:57] Michael: viability.

[60:58] Matt: Viability to that. But it's like, man, that's another step down. It's like if the solution is to look up to something, and at every step, it's like, no, look down, look down. Only look at yourself. Only look at yourself.

[61:11] Michael: Look.

[61:11] Matt: Only look at your own two feet. Only look internally. Don't even look at your external circumstances. Only look at your feelings. Your feelings are going to define your reality and are going to be your single source of truth for what reality is. And if you feel a certain way, that's because reality is that way. The only way out of that is to undo that, to start looking outside yourself, start looking into the future, start looking up to the symbols, start looking back up to God.

[61:47] Michael: Well, I think you just paint a really beautiful picture of sort of like when you get rid of God. It's like, okay, there's some secondary symbolism that, that comes in, but it becomes more and more shaky. The, the more you get rid of those higher ideals, the more shaky the ground you stand on. And so, like, the only response to that is to shrink your world. And I think that's the part is, like, we start shrinking our world more and more. And there's a. Like, it even shrinks down to, like, a very large group. But then even within that large group, there's disagreement, and so you have to shrink even further.

[62:22] Matt: Yeah.

[62:23] Michael: And then even with that shrink group, it's like, there's disagreement, and so it's like you have to continue because there's nothing objective to really rally around behind. And so that group becomes smaller and smaller and smaller. And you're always bringing up the CS Lewis, you know, moving out further and further outside of town. It's like. It's like. It's. It's just a natural response to. Once you get rid of those higher ideals and. And ultimately, God, it's like that's. The world you're creating is a. Is a very small and constricted world. That's. That's. And it's. It's funny because it's actually easy. It's easier just to make these statements of, like, you just don't understand me. Well, help me understand. No, you can't because you're white or because you're, you know, you're of the. A different religion, or if you're a woman or you're a man or whatever, you just can't understand me. It's like. It's like you're just taking. You're just shrinking your world further and further.

[63:24] Matt: Nice mosquito. When you said that, like, you started that with talking about when your foundation is shaky, you have to shrink your world. And I was thinking about, what was the name of that French guy? I think he was French. You see that movie man on Wire?

[63:44] Michael: Oh, God, yeah. That's such a great movie.

[63:46] Matt: Such a great movie. So for anyone who doesn't know, he illegally strings a tightrope wire between the twin towers, and this is in, like, I think, the 80s and walks it. It's an incredible movie. But, like, that's a pretty shaky foundation to stand on. You know, it's like, maybe you could stand on it. Maybe that guy practiced for years. He could stand on that wire, but he can't stand on it and hold his family. He can't stand on it and build a house, you know? Oh, there it is.

[64:20] Michael: Sorry,

[64:22] Matt: I'm not exactly sure how this fits in. But you said Louis, and I wanted to read this quote because I think this is something else that just is profoundly evident in our modern culture. And so in that way, I think it certainly ties into the thing that we've been kind of talking through here. There's A quote from C.S. lewis, his screwtape letters. So the Screwtape letters are a collection of fictional letters written from a senior demon to a junior demon apprentice. So he Says, do what you will. There is going to be some benevolence as well as some malice in your patient's soul. And he references the patient as the human that the junior apprentice demon is trying to afflict. So there will be some malice in your patient's soul. The great thing is to distract the malice to his immediate neighbors, who. Whom he meets every day, and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary.

[65:34] Michael: Oh, wow. That's really good.

[65:39] Matt: Isn't that exactly what we're seeing? It's like there's something in the heart of the west which is obsessed with benevolence for people that it has not and never will meet. And there is malice for our neighbors. I love that. That last line. Thus the malice becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary.

[66:08] Michael: Kyle, that makes sense. Yeah. There's something I've been journaling about this week is sort of like. Like, I am in love with the idea of God. I'm in love with the idea of my wife. I mean, I'm in love with the idea of my kids, but am I in love with God? Am I in love with my wife? And am I in love with my kids? And something that kind of really struck me was just like, oh, wow. It's like. It's like there's a lot in me that has a relationship with the idea of those people, but not the people themselves. And I don't think that's something that will never not be true. But that's. But it gives me that. It comes back to what we've been talking about is like, what are you aspiring to? It's like, I need to aspire to be in love with my wife, not the idea of my wife. I need to aspire to be in love with my kids, not the idea of my kids. You know, it applies to you. It applies to my business. It applies to a lot of things. That these ideas sometimes can be so abstract that you can be in love with them, but you have no relationship with them. Like a cause that you have that's over oceans. It's like you have this idea of this cause that you're a part of, but you have no relationship with it.

[67:42] Matt: Yeah, that's a good way to say it. Teresa of Avila said, God, I don't love you. I don't even want to love you, but I want to want to love you. Just an astounding Admission and to have to go sort of turtles all the way down to find the place to stand on which to say, I can stand here and only appeal to improve from a place of dishonesty. But I do want to improve. Yeah. And you can be in love with the idea of your wife and your kids, but to test whether you really do love them, what do you have to do? You have to find a place to be with them and pay attention.

[68:33] Michael: And I think the thing that's most discouraging about that, that worldview, is once you set out onto having that relationship, you're just going to experience how much you fall short of it. But that's actually a good thing because it's showing you that there's more to experience. I think that's the hard thing is once you kind of admit that, oh, I am relating to an idea of you rather than to the person itself, it's like you're just gonna see, like, whoa, that's a turtles all the way down type of situation where, well, it

[69:10] Matt: puts you in touch with reality. But that's a. Like you said, that's a good thing because at least if I'm in touch with reality, I have a place from which to operate. I can do something from reality. I can't do something from an imaginary fantasy.

[69:25] Michael: Yeah.

[69:26] Matt: Which I think is why I kicked this whole conversation off with these three news stories. It's like, I feel very troubled by the. The dispensing of reality. It's like, what do you hope to do when you've dispensed with reality? There isn't anything you can do. There isn't anything doable. There's only madness. That's a bad dream, man.

[69:51] Michael: Because you're not even asking me to agree with you.

[69:53] Matt: Oh, yeah.

[69:54] Michael: It's like you're. You're. Because, like. Like, if you and I agree, like, yes, Bago cannot get a fair trial, we're basically saying that's just true for all time. Like, it will never not be true. But if we say, like, hey, I agree with you.

[70:09] Matt: Let's.

[70:10] Michael: Let's figure out how to change this. Okay. Let's examine what this is so that we can move towards a fairer system. It's like, well, first of all, that takes work. And obviously we're going to see that's not actually the case in all cases. So it's like, there's truths that you're going to have to work through that even kind of defy your narrative. And are you willing to move forward with something that Maybe even defies your narrative. Like, maybe we see, like, it's like 30% of the time a black man can't get. A black person can't get a fair trial. Well, that's still too much. But we're also saying 70% of the time that happens, you know, but it's like, the percentage is not the point. It's just that you're moving forward into something, but you're. You're measuring it, and you're also saying, like, okay, this is a problem, and we're moving towards a better future. And I feel like a lot of times when people are bringing up these issues and problems, it's like we're not willing to actually make any progress to making it better, which is just ridiculous.

[71:18] Matt: Yeah. Without a shared goal, obviously, there's no progress that you can make. And seems like we not only do not agree on the goal, we don't even agree that there should be a goal.

[71:34] Michael: Yeah. Because almost any issue that anybody has with the world, I kind of almost agree with almost everybody.

[71:43] Matt: What do you mean?

[71:44] Michael: Well, it's like, hey, there's a problem. I'm like, yes. And the next thing is like, okay, how big of a problem is it? It's not whether it's like, no, that's not a problem. It's more like, okay, how big of a problem is it?

[72:00] Matt: Yeah.

[72:00] Michael: You know, is it. Is it a huge problem? And it is. But it's interesting, too, is because we all, you know, relative to what? Also it's like, you know, you know, there's a problem at the grocery store. They're charging us too much. It's like, okay, how does that compare to, like, genocide? It's like, well, obviously, one's a little bit more important than the other.

[72:21] Matt: You know, have you seen. It was actually when I ran across that quote from the Screwtape letters. It was on Twitter, and they tweeted that quote with this image that I'm sure you've seen. It's. It's a little bit hard to describe, but it's two graphs. Two heat graphs. Oh, yume Shati. Yeah.

[72:48] Michael: Okay.

[72:49] Matt: And so this is answers to the question of how important something is to you, given its proximity to you. So in the middle would be things very, very close to you. Your children, your home, your family. And at the end, external or at the outside of the circumference of the graph, that would be things very, very far away from you. So the Milky Way, the cosmos, and liberals rate things as more important the farther they get away. Conservatives Rate things more important the closer they are.

[73:29] Michael: That's interesting.

[73:31] Matt: So that's kind of a. It's kind of astounding that some people would rate things that are further away as more important to them, as something close to them. But I think Lewis gives us an insight into that in that quote, that your benevolence should be pointed towards the farthest reach of the circumference. But I think it also shows that there's a disagreement on your response to asking the question, well, how big of a problem is that? And how do you rank order the problem at the grocery store with the problem of a genocide? How do you rank order the problem of a genocide on the other side of the world with the problem of a genocide in your neighborhood? We don't agree on the rank ordering of those things. So it's not a productive conversation to say, well, hey, let's talk about the size of the problem and rank order them. And that way we can go through and actually make some progress here. But we don't agree on that. It's hard for me to exactly identify who I mean when I say we, but I think it's probably pretty obvious to most people that there are sort of two sides. Two distinct sides to most cultural issues and two distinct sides to most political issues. And you might say they're left and right, but I think that's increasingly unspecific or not specific enough distinction, because sort of the madness, the irrationality, the abandonment of higher order ideals, the move inward to where reality is perceived through my feelings rather than in any externality. I think that this is at once both just the common affliction of man in modern times. I think it's in all of us, and I see it both on the left and the right and in different ways.

[75:43] Michael: Well, even that map that you were showing me, like, you know, it's like, you know what? That is beautiful. You know why? Because we actually have the time and space to worry about things outside of ourselves.

[75:58] Matt: Like, if you overlapped them, you'd have full coverage. Is that what you mean?

[76:02] Michael: And it's actually. It's actually that, that tension between the two because, like, we live in a society that, like, you know, like for most people. And I just saw this one, John Kennedy. Not John Kennedy, the Kenny that makes all those funny. He's such a good quipper.

[76:17] Matt: Oh, that, like, he's like a senator. He's very old.

[76:20] Michael: He's hilarious. But anyways, he was just making the point that it's like, it's like we we say that there's about 11% of people under the poverty line in the United states, but that 11% does not. Does not count all the different benefits. Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, living expense. It means like, all these things. And so it's like that actually pushes that number up to 64,000 from 11,000, which is under the poverty line. And so it's actually only 1% of the United States actually lives below the poverty line. And, and that just totally. It just blew my mind. And he was asking Howard Lutnick, and it's funny, Howard Lucknow was like, he's like, oh, yeah, he's. Because he's like, but we don't account for all the different government subsidies that we give to US Citizens. And so if you take all those, those subsidies, it's like, it's like there's only 1% of the population. And again, you can say 1% is too much, and I'm fine with that.

[77:20] Matt: But.

[77:20] Michael: But again, it's like, I think that shows us, like, we live in such a great nation that you can actually worry about because, like, you know what? Other people in other nations that don't have that luxury, they don't give a shit what's happening in Europe or in the United States or in the Middle East. You know, it's like, because there's so much going on in their own. In their own. There's so much corruption and, and horrendousness that's going on in their immediate vicinity that they can only worry about themselves and maybe their family, you know, so it's like a luxury that we have, that sort of disparity.

[77:57] Matt: Yeah.

[77:58] Michael: Does that make sense?

[77:59] Matt: Totally. In the trigonometry guy, I have a hard time saying, his name is Constance Constant. Constance. He gave a speech, I think, at Oxford where he was talking about that very thing. And he was. He was talking about the proposed solutions to climate change and to going green and getting off fossil fuels and talking about what that would take. And he was like, do you think you're going to be able to get somebody who's burning dung for heat in Africa to go green? They don't have the luxury to care about what you're even talking to them about. I mean, I think that, that maybe that's a sort of a nasty side effect of pushing the benevolence of our hearts further and further out, is that we imagine that other people are experiencing or could experience something of the same world we live in and we're not aware of the just insane luxury that we have, and we can't imagine not having it.

[79:06] Michael: It's such a luxury to be able to, like. And I think that's also beautiful that we can think about that outer circle of our own existence, you know, for the most part, you know, like, that we can actually care about what's happening in the Middle east or in Africa or in other countries. It's like. It's like. I think that's the part we have to be able to live in that tension of like, no, there's actually immediate things in front of us that we need to take care of. You know what. But also, we need to also extend that out to others. And that's a hard tension to maintain. And at any one time it can become perverted. And I think you see that in the sort of, like, the talk about how horrible the US Is. It's like, actually, it's one of the best places to be because we can actually have that tension. You can't have that tension anywhere else. Like, this is the only country in the world, really, where you can have that tension, you know, And I think that's the. That's the. I think that's the unfortunate is like. It's like we just have lost perspective. And the privilege that. I hate that word. The privilege that we. That we get to be.

[80:13] Matt: I hate that we've just ruined words totally. It's like, privilege. What does that even mean anymore? What do you mean when you say that?

[80:22] Michael: Totally. But again, I think it comes back to the whole, like, you know, it's like, what is it that we're moving towards? And if you. If you. If you think about it like, that's kind of the ideal of the United States is like, we're moving towards the kingdom of heaven. Like, that's something that we aspire to. It's not something that we've attained or will attain, but we aspire to, that you're created in the image of God. It's like. It's like, okay, well, we're saying that there's something about you that is. That's. That's. There's more of you that's required of you than what you believe you have. You know, it's like. It's like we're. We're trying to like saying, like, there's. There's actually an objective judge or someone who judges us and that we're going to try to mirror that and be as fair as possible. And I think that's. I think that's what's kind of given us this Sort of, you know, great country. And once we start kind of moving away from that, it's like, who becomes your judge? You have to start shrinking that circle more and more.

[81:23] Matt: So interesting, because you were saying earlier, like, if you have to live according to my definitions, then you have to constantly check in with me to see if you're living right. And that's you kind of making me God. If I say, here's the way that I'm going to identify, and you must treat me accordingly, the only way you can know whether you're doing that right is to check with me. But if we move it upward and say the only way I can know I'm living right is to check with God, like, that's the proper. That's the proper position of judgment, and it relieves me of the duty of God, and it puts the judgment in the proper place. Because I'm imperfect. I can't judge you perfectly. Even if you wanted to be judged perfectly, which would be astounding, because nobody wants to be judged perfectly. We want to be judged according to who we wish to be. I mean, that's. Your whole point about earlier, is like, you were sort of saying it was manipulative. And I still push back on that. I think it's. It's like. It's like, no, you. You're full of potential, and you want that potential to be recognized and converted into reality.

[82:37] Michael: Yeah. I think it's manipulative in the sense that if I'm not moving towards it, but I'm wanting you to. Wanting me to. Wanting to. Experiencing me in that way, then it becomes manipulative.

[82:48] Matt: Right.

[82:48] Michael: You know, I think that's. I think that's a hard thing to do. If you're. If you don't have an. If you're not striving towards a higher ideal rather than making other people, you know, acquiesce to your ideal of yourself. But I think that's also an interesting point that you just made, too, is like, okay, well, like, I'm always checking in with you on what is right and wrong, but what if I disagree with you?

[83:15] Matt: It's like, well, who arbitrates between us?

[83:18] Michael: Yeah, I have to fight you. Like, who's gonna win that? It's like, well, maybe I can win through humiliating Matt. You know, it's like. It's like, maybe I can call him names and everyone else just discredit. Funny, I was kind of joking.

[83:31] Matt: You're like, who's gonna win? And I was like, probably me. And I'm imagining, like, a Physical fight. And then you're like, I can humiliate him. And I was like, oh, no, don't do that.

[83:41] Michael: Well, it's crazy because dirty. Because that's the part too, is like, in our. In especially in our Western society, where it's like. Like the use of force is sort of a last effort. It's like, it's not. It's not. So it's like, what. So what tools do you have?

[83:55] Matt: Not only a last effort. It's an effort that we have reserved for. We've outsourced to the state itself. Violence is not acceptable except for the government.

[84:08] Michael: And it's like, that's the part is like, well, I can tell a story about Matt that will discredit him in front of all of his peers, and therefore now my narrative will be considered. And so I think that's the part. That's the fight that I think we're in right now is like, we're trying to discredit all these other people's narratives in order for people to assume our

[84:31] Matt: narrative, which is just another kind of genocide. I'm going to genocide your narrative. So there's space for my narrative to not be questioned so much. Totally. Yeah.

[84:40] Michael: I mean, you saw the whole thing with, like, racist and anti racist. You know, it's like, what, is there only two groups? I was like, how did this happen? Like, yeah, you're either racist or anti racist, and. But both mean you're racist. I'm like, no, no, no. These are. These. These are not the only two categories, guys.

[84:58] Matt: There's also just not racist. Well, so I want to say just a quick note on words, because I find this really interesting. We do a real disservice to ourselves when we discredit words when we do that by misapplying them. So, like, privilege or racism or whiteness or. I mean, there's a bevy of them that we've completely clobbered in the last. Yeah, totally. I mean, you know, even, like, the idea of homosexuality. It's like, what even is that anymore?

[85:33] Michael: You know?

[85:34] Matt: What are you talking about when you say that you've shoehorned and cudgeled so many things into that category that I don't know. I don't know what you mean. It's Pride Month. Who are we celebrating? What is the category? I don't know. But. So earlier we were driving around, my car was in the shop, so it wasn't here last week, and now it's back, and you were like, hey, you got your. I don't Know what you said? You got your car back, and I drive a Tahoe. And you said, do you call it a car or a truck? I thought it was really interesting because I grew up in a fairly small Texas town. And when I was growing up, there were two categories for automobiles. You had a car and you had a truck. And the definition was the chassis that the vehicle sat on. So if it was a truck chassis, and so a pickup truck has a truck chassis. A Suburban has a truck chassis. A Tahoe has a truck chassis, all these things are trucks. The inferior chassis is the car. And all of those, whether it's a sedan or a coupe or a whatever, all those are cars. And so I would generally, if I'm kind of reverting to my younger self, I would call my Tahoe a truck. But I think words. I find words really interesting because if anybody asks me what kind of car I drive, I don't correct them and say, I don't drive a car, I drive a truck. It's like, I know what they're asking. Which brings up a really interesting point, is that we don't use words because we understand their definition. We use words because the person listening to us understands what we mean. So when somebody says, what kind of car do you drive? They're not making a distinction between types of cars and trucks. They're basically saying, what's your personal means of mode of transportation? I might say, I ride a motorcycle. Which is a legitimate answer, a correct answer to the question, even though the definition of the words would not compute for that answer to be a reasonable answer. And so because we don't use words based upon their definition, but based upon how the person will understand us, it's also possible to play a really dirty, cheap game with that, which I think is if you take a word that everybody understands the meaning of correctly or incorrectly, it doesn't matter, because we don't use words based on their definition. We use them based on understanding, and you swap out the meaning of it without telling anybody. So, great example of this. The word pandemic was redefined in 2020. People weren't told this, but what that allowed was for us to use the word that we thought we knew and then find credible journalism using the word technically to justify reinforcing what we thought we were saying. The same thing was done with the word vaccine. The definition of the word vaccine was changed so that we thought we knew what we were saying when we said, are you vaccinated for COVID 19. Because we don't use words on their definition. That trick works. You can swap the definition and make everybody think that they mean what they're saying when they actually mean something very different. Whatever the vaccine, the COVID vaccine is, is irrelevant to my point. Whatever the pandemic was is irrelevant to my point. Those are two recent examples of this. But I think we've done the same thing with work words like privilege and words like racism. You know when you saw the emergence with Igram X Kendi who, like, he's gone. What happened to him? Yeah, not to mention what's her name?

[89:42] Michael: Oh, Angela, whatever her name is that

[89:46] Matt: Matt Walsh confronted in Am I a Racist?

[89:49] Michael: Yeah.

[89:50] Matt: Nobody's heard from her since then. Anyway, when the term anti racist came out, I think it smuggled in with it a redefinition of the word racism. And it basically took something we all knew and agreed was bad. And so when we use the word racism, we were basically saying, yeah, the old bigoted, intolerant ways of the past. We all know we're bad and we're glad that we've moved away from them. We all agree on that. And it installed, called in it, in the definition of that term, something that could be used to gain power and wealth. And it said, you're either racist or anti racist. So if you're not anti racist, then you are racist. Which means that if I want to stay out of your silly game, I'm racist, which I'm not. It's just that you've.

[90:49] Michael: And by saying that, you prove the point that you are racist.

[90:52] Matt: Right. So again, madness. And so I simultaneously, it's like, I don't want us to have to become, like, legalistic about words. And I don't want to have to carry around the fucking Merriam Webster or even just in my own discourse, think about the definition of every word that I'm using. It's not how we think, it's not how we talk. And we should be free to do that. But it requires something like you were saying, like something like in good faith, benefit of the doubt, it requires that you not be the judge of me, but we share a same judge that can arbitrate between us. So that way we can actually clear up misconceptions and misunderstandings and when necessary, consult a dictionary and say, what does this word actually mean? Are we talking about the same thing? I mean, to figure out what a word means. The point of that is not to figure out what the word means, it's to figure out whether or not we're talking about the same thing. Totally yeah, so this is kind of akin to. It's like, I'm just. It fascinates me just at some level about the human brain. Like, words aren't like this. Even just letters are like this. If you pay attention to just the signs, like, just drive down the highway, pay attention to the signs and all the different fonts on the signs and ask yourself how it is that you can read all of that and consider what the definition is of a letter. How do you draw a letter F? Well, you think, you know, but look around. It's hard to say what an F is because you recognize an F in 30,000 forms. It's wild.

[92:29] Michael: Yeah, there's definitely a lot of approximation to that.

[92:36] Matt: I mean, maybe that just has something to do with the human mind's ability to collapse concepts. I mean, you don't distinguish between an uppercase and lowercase F. When I say F. They're both F, but they're two different things. No, they're the same thing.

[92:53] Michael: Well, I think this. I just love your point as far as, like, when we're communicating with each other, it's not about the words. It's like we're trying to understand something.

[93:04] Matt: It's intent.

[93:05] Michael: It's intent. It's like something outside of ourselves. It's like we're talking about something.

[93:09] Matt: Talking about something.

[93:10] Michael: Yeah.

[93:10] Matt: Yeah.

[93:10] Michael: And so. And we're trying to, like. It's like if you don't see. It's like we're both trying to get there. And then I feel like that's where we go wrong, is like. Like I'm wanting you to submit to what I'm saying into my definitions, into my right decree. It's like. It's like, okay, well, I see something over here, and you're like, no, look back at me. You know, submit to me.

[93:33] Matt: We're not both trying to get there. Yeah, you are there, and you're demanding that I come. Yeah, here, doggy.

[93:40] Michael: Totally. Yeah.

[93:45] Matt: That's really fascinating. I mean, symbolically or just sort of, like, visually? It's like you're saying, no, look at me. And that's what Jesus says to Peter when Peter says, call me out on the water to walk to you. And he starts sinking. And Jesus says, look at me.

[94:03] Michael: Oh, that's great.

[94:04] Matt: He's the only legitimate source to say that, I think, because we aren't both trying to get there. Jesus is there. I know we should rap, but I'll. Let me put one more.

[94:20] Michael: I wonder how you can bring that up and then just wrap it.

[94:24] Matt: Jesus sort of Time. And you keep. Keep glancing at the clock.

[94:28] Michael: Well, I was like. I was like. I was like, oh, hour and a half. But I'm totally fine with good words. Like, it's just you and I talking, so it's totally fine. We'll just keep talking after this. Anyways, it doesn't matter.

[94:38] Matt: I can't remember who made this point. They. They made the point that Adam was the first man, Jesus was the second, because Jesus was a fundamentally different kind of man, because he was fully God and fully man. And everyone who is descended from Adam is descended from sin. We don't learn sin, we wake up into it. We are born into it. We are of Adam and Jesus, the second kind of man who is from. And in heaven, a place no one has. I mean, this is a claim Jesus made is he has firsthand knowledge of heaven. No one else has knowledge of heaven. But he came here to give us his firsthand account of that. And then he said, all of you descended of Adam now by my actions here can be now descended from me this new type of man. And I thought that was extraordinary.

[95:54] Michael: Well, it's interesting because it calls for submission, you know, to. To something higher.

[96:01] Matt: Yeah.

[96:01] Michael: It's like you're. You're of the earth, and now I'm asking you to submit to something bigger than yourself.

[96:07] Matt: Which is why I think that symbol, that symbology of Jesus saying to Peter, keep your eyes on me. Look at me. That's the only legitimate place from which that call can. That's the only place from which that call can be legitimate, because that place is heaven. There's no other man who's ever lived on earth who can legitimately say, look at me. I will solve your problems. You looking at me will solve your problems.

[96:36] Michael: It's so fascinating, too. It's like, even symbolically, it's kind of like a father and their son are their children or their. Their parents. You know, it's like, hey, look at me. It's like, I'm an imperfect guide, but I'm going to help you get there.

[96:51] Matt: And. And that becomes less and less true the older the children get.

[96:56] Michael: Yeah. When you're young, it's like, that's life and death.

[96:59] Matt: Yeah.

[97:00] Michael: Don't go out in the street. Look at me.

[97:01] Matt: Right?

[97:05] Michael: Look at me. You know, but that's definitely, like, acts. It acts itself out and parent the child, which is fascinating. Dude, I feel like there's a whole conversation in that area.

[97:24] Matt: Well, maybe we should bookmark it.

[97:25] Michael: Yeah.

[97:26] Matt: I'm ready to rap.

[97:27] Michael: Yeah.

[97:28] Matt: Go to post podcast world.

[97:30] Michael: Totally. We love you guys.

[97:33] Matt: Spend some alone time together.

[97:35] Michael: Yeah. There's something about that. Like, just like, you know, relationally, like, you know, I think that's something that having people around you that are also curious about what is, you know, not what you think things are, but what. What actually is, and exploring that, and that's something I think we. We do together. That you need other people in your

[97:58] Matt: life to do that with, to discover and defend reality.

[98:04] Michael: Yeah.

[98:07] Matt: All right. Cheers to that.

[98:08] Michael: Cheers.

[98:08] Matt: Love you guys out there.

[98:09] Michael: Ciao.

[98:10] Matt: Thanks for listening.

[98:15] Michael: I don't know why my ears are so itchy. Really? Yeah.

[98:19] Matt: Old itchy ears.